The firm clarified that they terminated him as of June 30, 2009, “because of work that was well below our partnership standards, his fractured relationship with colleagues and allegations of inappropriate behavior with subordinates,” as reported by AM Law Daily.
The reason he was barred entry was that he had been effectively fired, as of December, before he had filed an EEOC complaint, and as for the recommendation letter, Ropes regarded his allegations as “scurrilous,” and “as a matter of law, no defendant should be forced to provide a dishonest recommendation letter.”
The partner Randall Bodner explained why he did not write the letter: “Given the fact that I believe you are bringing a groundless claim for your own personal benefit, I simply do not feel now that I can write a recommendation in good conscience, especially for another organization I deeply care about.”
Further investigation into Ray’s emails prior to the complaint showed no indication he believed he had been discriminated against, as he himself framed the situation as Ropes making an “economic decision” not to take him on. He mentioned nothing of discrimination and seemed to be framing the decision as something neutral regarding his work, let alone his race or any bias against him. For this reason, Ropes argues that “The inference that plaintiff’s discrimination case was a post-hoc invention at securing a large sum of money from Ropes & Gray follows inescapably.”
How long the litigation can linger on is another matter, but it seems pretty solid that the case will be Ropes’.